In addition to reports from South Ossetia, where Georgian troops would leave such a position, the Russian TV channels are full of indignant comments. They are outraged reaction of Western politicians and the media to a new Caucasian war. Those ignore the obvious fact that it is not Russia, and Saakashvili had violated all the agreements and during the day exposed the barbaric bombardment of Tskhinvali. "On the one who fired the first shot, you can argue ad infinitum" - shrugs off Russia's main argument, a senior US official, who conducted a briefing for American journalists. At the fore another - Russian disproportionate use of military force - primarily airstrikes during the entire depth of the Georgian territory.
US President faces the consequences of a new Caucasian campaign seriously affect Russia's relations with the outside world. Around the same spirit spoke the foreign ministries of other Western countries, the EU and NATO. If diplomats are trying to avoid the word "aggression", the world's leading TV channels, it sounds pretty often. At least for the reason that the lion's share of time in the programs available, Mikhail Saakashvili, who presents excellent English Georgian version of events.
As for the native television, it routinely mutters: "slandering the bastards." And the mouth of Mikhail Leontiev explains what is happening world-wide anti-Russian conspiracy, in which Saakashvili simply does the job "the Washington Regional Committee." And much of the propaganda department of the "regional committee", by itself, provides news coverage.
If you do not wake up in the paranoid view of the world conspiracy, it is necessary to answer a simple question. Why is the situation when Moscow and Tbilisi to provide two diametrically opposed versions of what is happening and when the argument and the one and the other have obvious flaws, for some reason, believe Georgia?
In my view, the crucial role played by the bombing of other parts of Georgia. The logic is easy to understand our generals - all the rules of military science is necessary to deprive the enemy reserves and do not give it to replenish stocks of military equipment. Therefore, Russian warplanes pounded on military bases and runways of airfields. At the same time, our aircraft did not sin precisely, instead of covering the bases neighborhoods. Anticipate it was not difficult. So, we should really weigh the hypothetical effect of such a military bombing and propaganda very real damage. This would be possible only if the purpose of the bombing was not to intimidate the Georgian population.
Too broad military actions of Russia have generated quite natural question of what is the real purpose of the operation. Well, if the problem of the Russian troops limited "peace enforcement" in South Ossetia, the restoration of the line of separation of the parties, as stated Deputy Chief of General Staff Nagovicyn. But in this case it is not very clear why Moscow is actually supported Abkhazia, which opened a "second front" against Georgia.
And, most importantly, how can we explain the fact that in a telephone conversation with Condoleezza Rice, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said quite frankly that "Saakashvili must leave." It is significant that the Americans took the unprecedented step of publicly announcing at a meeting of the UN Security Council the contents of the confidential telephone conversations. I think this means that no serious business with Russia is no longer the current administration is going to have. Though Lavrov hastened to declare that he had been misunderstood, it is clear that Moscow is not only driven by the desire to establish a durable peace in South Ossetia. There are persistent hatred of the regime of Saakashvili, who like to destroy had a chance. And Moscow can not hide it, which undermines faith in her words.
It is impossible not to see that the Russian leaders ignored the opportunity to bring their views to the international community. Saakashvili did not come down with the American TV screens. However, I suspect if Dmitry Medvedev decided to talk with foreign journalists, they certainly would have responded.
Finally the last and perhaps the most important factor. The fact that the whole world now considers Russia as the aggressor - the most important result of all previous foreign policy. The one that has recently characterized as a successful action for the return of Russia to the international arena. Why would a critical situation Moscow should trust partners, which for several years been told to put it mildly, inadequate Kremlin leaders. Let us remember the promise to aim missiles at Poland, Czech Republic and Ukraine, so give response to the deployment of US missile defense and NATO expansion. Let us remember all this nonsense about an asymmetrical but adequate Russian response, about the flights of strategic bombers in Cuba, about the deployment of "Iskander" in the Kaliningrad region. Let us remember about the historic speech of Vladimir Putin in Munich.
It is unlikely that a special trust to Moscow should experience in the United States, which a senior Foreign Ministry domestic recently predicted an unprecedented crisis and which promised to delete from the list of partners. Should we trust Russia, Britain? After polonium scandal stories spyware brick and the actual closure of the British Council - it is quite difficult. After all, each of these stories are accompanied by endless lies from the mouths of Russian officials. The current diplomatic defeat (one can only hope that it does not lead to a complete diplomatic isolation of Russia) clearly demonstrates the effectiveness and success of our foreign policy.